Hi dig,
I think the equation works this way.
1. The company has cash needs or it will go under. This may be because Wave isn't doing a great sales job, or the demand isn't there, or whatever. But it is what it is.
2. SS wishes to persevere with the TC idea and he wishes to keep his job.
3. For SS, dilution makes less difference as he makes a fortune in cash. If the company does well eventually, he'll be fine as well. Same for the board.
4. Wavoids see that the choice is between on the one hand insolvency & failure, and on the other dilution. The latter is preferable.
5. Wavoids also want to pursue the TC idea and think the risk of proper oversight is that SS won't be able to do so.
6. Wavoids perceive they are pursuing their interests in supporting SS.
7. So it isn't a polar thing - life versus being thrown under the bus. It's a lose a little bit in return for keeping a large proportion sort of equation.
8. The problem is that Wave plays this game over and over. So folks find that their large portion is dwindling, while SS keeps getting paid. And meanwhile, from a strategic sense, SS acts as if the long run never counts down. There's always a new product to develop. Old products don't die, they just cease being talked about.
9. As you know, I recently decided I don't think SS is the right person to lead the company. He seems to me to have shown a consistent inability to develop a product which sells in volume and/or an inability to market the company's product set. He doesn't seem to me to be a CEO. More a strategist who reports to a person that takes responsibility for the business.
10. I thought awk made a mistake about the board also. But if he believes what he does, I don't see why he shouldn't argue his case. However, I thought the wavoids collectively were rather limp on this issue.
| 
